climategateFollow

As I suspected. You don't understand how earmarks work. Go look it up and then get back to me.




Who's "we" though? That's kinda circular, isn't it? Everyone who dismisses their opinions is in agreement that their science isn't as strong as the science they believe in. Sounds more like faith than science to me...

Ok. Then how do you explain all the former members of the IPCC who have now reversed their positions on the issue? They were good scientists when they agreed, but are bad scientists now? How can you not see that you're judging the science by whether or not it agrees with you, not the other way around...?



Except that I'm not the one insisting that everyone pay for what is essentially a whole bunch of really expensive tinfoil hats to protect us from global warming. You get that the "side" who wants to convince the rest of the world to make major sacrifices is the side that has the burden of proof, right? All I have to do is show that there is sufficient question on the issue.


The very existence of large numbers of scientists in a wide assortment of related fields who disagree should be sufficient. Why do you cling so strongly to this belief?

Edited, Dec 14th 2009 7:30pm by gbaji

Ok. But can you see that whether or not the politician believes it isn't that relevant, right? As you said, it's about whether you can get enough people to believe it, not about whether or not it's actually true...



Yes. I'm not a politician though. It's not that all politicians will follow what the people believe instead of what they believe, but that successful politicians will be those who do. If I run for office in a district in which 80% of the people believe in SSM, I'm going to lose on that issue, while someone who holds the opposite position will win.

The "jaded" part is when you realize that statistically this means that in a representative democracy, virtually all elected officials are there not because they are right about anything, or that they're good people, or that they understand a single thing about any issue. They're there because they hold a set of positions on issues which matches with what the majority of the people who voted for/against them hold. That's it. Oh. And they're photogenic, or connected correctly, or whatever.


That's the difference between a politician and a statesman. A politician reflects what the people want or believe. A statesman is able to convince the people to want or believe something else. The latter is very common and the former very rare.



Of course they do. There's no political power to be gained by opposing the idea. I already explained this. An industry which pollutes can be regulated and controlled. By defining CO2 as a pollutant, it puts the government in the position to regulate industry to a much greater degree than otherwise.



Which just means that there's a lot to gain if you can convince enough people that ACC is a serious threat, and pretty much nothing to lose. You're not exactly disproving my position here...



Yes. But it's the majority who decide where the funding goes by default. The minority party can use some leverage to add funding into things they want as well, but the system isn't set up to allow them to block it. Not without blocking a whole bill. Have you ever seen a "Fund Global Warming Research" Bill? Or is the money buried inside a larger energy bill typically? Surprise!



It's not just worse for "them". It's worse for "us". I really do think that most of the people mindlessly clamoring in support of global warming don't really understand the massive economic hit the entire world economy would suffer if they succeeded.

We don't use oil and coal for most of our power needs because the evil oil and coal companies manipulate things to make it that way. I know that's a popular conspiracy theory, but the reality is that if it was really more affordable to generate large scale quantities of electricity via windmills and solar panels we'd be doing it large scale. And if it was really more efficient to power cars via electricity or hydrogen or whatever, we would. The big companies would adopt the technology and sell it for a profit. The free market has no vested interest in blocking new technologies. It's usually the government which does that.

While it's a popular assumption that somehow if we just make burning fossil fuels expensive enough, those evil companies will stop blocking the clean green technology they've been sitting on, the reality is that it will just make everything we do more expensive. Everything. We will be the ones who suffer, not the oil or power companies. They'll just pass the cost on to us.



Not within the context of the actual political conditions at work though. That's really the big problem here. The volume of carbon reduction required is more than the world economy can stand. The numbers are so inflated, so far out there, so ridiculous, that we will bankrupt the entire world before we even put a dent in the CO2 levels. If the temperature models they are using are correct, we're equally screwed whether we adopt every single proposal out there right now or not.


Let me put it another way. And I'll admit that this is a weak argument in terms of the science, but it's a strong one in terms of making a decision on the political end of things. You'd better hope that ACC effects from CO2 are grossly exaggerated. Because the same models which claim that temperatures will go up by 2 degrees C in the next 100 years if we do nothing, show that if we do everything, we might reduce that by .1 to .2 degree C over that time frame (so it'll still go up 1.9 C).

And quite frankly. If we're going to all die anyway, we may as well do it with our industry going at full speed and hope that either the ACC theorists are wrong, or that said industry comes up with a solution. I personally believe (based on a whole assortment of reasons) that the science supporting ACC is weak and unlikely to be accurate. I believe they have grossly overestimated the greenhouse effect of ACC generated CO2, and grossly underestimated other countering natural forces at work. However, even if I'm wrong, there quite literally is no gain in following their recommendations.


They're wrong in either case. We either continue as we are, and temperatures go up a couple degrees with whatever effects that has, or we spend a ridiculous amount of money and make massive sacrifices, and end up in pretty much the same state in a hundred years. Um... Or they're just plain wrong and we're fine in a hundred years either way. One path just has a whole lot of unnecessary pain is all...

No, gbaji, a few marginalized scientists who ignore the overwhelming evidence purported by the mainstream. It's like those few that probably still believe there was no moon landing or that overmothering causes homosexuality.

Why would the government want to regulate oil industry? There is no gain to be had in that. Why fight against someone who is potentially your strongest ally? Just look at the food industry where we have--at best--an oligopoly. Massive corn subsidies. Lack of regulation on the healthiness of product. USDA officials who come directly from the industry and after serving go directly back to it.

There is very little political gain to be had in fighting large corporations and so much to be had in partnering with them. There is everything to gain from fighting ACC. Who has the money to fund expensive campaigns? Large companies. Who can provide you with under the table kickbacks? Large companies. Who can give you promising career opportunities if you serve them well while in office? Large companies.

If I get the power to regulate and restrict the oil industry what am I going to do with it? At best I could threaten to actually use that power, but get nothing out of actually regulating and restricting.

Even if there was significant gain to be had in controlling the oil industry it would HAVE to be a conspiracy. It could not possibly be individual politicians acting to advance their own self interest. No individual politicians could hope to ever gain significant control over oil.

There is very little to gain or lose. If everyone accepted ACC as true tomorrow the Dems wouldn't make huge wins either. They'd grab a few more seats, but it wouldn't be the end of the Pubbies. Overall there is very little political volatility here. No matter what the truth is, neither party has much to gain or lose directly politically. There has to be something else, such as genuine concern that ACC is real and we could ***** up big time or huge external interests with lots of money and power.

But the scientists have been saying the same thing under both administrations and both party's control of the House. Not to mention that the scientific bodies of most every first world country are saying the same thing. Are all the governments in the world simultaneously being controlled by liberals?


They do. If you believe ACC is occurring and we must work towards shifting our dependence on renewable and cleaner energy production, then it's expected there will be huge costs in doing that. The reason renewable energy sources haven't taken control of the market now isn't because people are set against ACC and the technology. It's because most forms aren't economically feasible. In urban areas we're used to paying a few cents per kilowatt hour of power. When gas prices only doubled in a short period it was the most important issue in the news. There are huge costs to switching over to greener alternatives at the moment, and people who support the idea of ACC don't deny this.

The flip side is that if ACC is occurring, then we have to switch over. As much as it would ***** up the economy to survive on only hydroturbines, solar, and wind power, it'd be far, far costly to not do so. The costs of switching to green alternatives because of ACC would engender an economic crisis; the costs of ignoring ACC would effect economic collapse.

We're not all going to die anyway. If we switched over to largely greener alternatives then the cost of energy may quadruple initially. That is huge, and would ripple throughout the world economy. It would be a significant economic setback, but we wouldn't be dead. If ACC theorists are correct and we don't start switching over, then are looking at severe and widespread famines because ecosystems are severely damaged, and all the economic effects that brings with it.

Edited, Dec 14th 2009 10:53pm by Allegory

And here's the thing, energy costs will not in fact quadruple. Also, removal of oil subsidization, which curiously enough leads to less governmental tampering (Which should make Gbaji happy) could be part of the solution.

would you call it pork or poultry?

Heresy!

Still pointing out that someone in this thread still doesn't understand carbon dioxide poisoning, but then learning things from ehow.com will do that to you. Oh well, sometimes there's no way to convince the stupid.

Why our generation, will die before we may begin to see any benefit of Green technologies, there is a large section of society that wants to make sure our grandchildren and great grand children have a cleaner environment to live in. This is why we bought the most fuel efficient car we could and my daughter and son-in-law bought an hybrid. We recycle as much as we can and only buy Green Star appliances. We're concern about what kind of world Ian and Erin will grow up in and can only hope that actions we make today, will benefit future generations of our family.

Yes we spend more to be Green today, but the hope we are creating a better world for our children is worth it, They may have to have higher taxes to pay for our wasteful spending on things that don't benefit them, like wars and corn sweeteners.

Where's the documentation to back up your claim?

Also, why don't you count nuclear as a green fuel?

Yes. But you rejected that as a possible explanation. Thus, in the absence of a stated alternative, the one I've proposed is the "simplest".

Get it?

Oh. And Joph? All that shows is that the energy industry donates most to the party which is in power.

Edited, Dec 15th 2009 1:02pm by gbaji

Those are fine. I have nothing against making things as clean and fuel efficient as possible. But the proposals being pushed in response to global warming go far far beyond that. Hence, the problem.



But if we enact the volume of things the global warming folks want us to, we wont be handing our grandchildren a better world. We'll just be making them poor. We will eliminate economic mobility and the middle class long before we reduce CO2 emissions enough to even put a dent in the claimed temperature increases. Historically, when there's a broad movement used to push the people into a massive change like this, with promises of a better world at the end, the people make the sacrifice, but the better world never materializes.


You may think I'm some crazy tinfoil hat wearer, but I see this as a second attempt at a Communist Revolution. This time, using environmental idealism instead of political idealism to push the people into sacrificing for that better future. But long before we get there, the people will have given up so much power and control that when those in power decide to change direction, they wont be able to do anything about it. Worse, they'll probably just meekly accept it as necessary.

Your grandchildren will be slaves. That's the better future you're building for them.